News
SpaceX advances reuse efforts as recovery of two boosters nearly complete
Three launches, two recoveries, two coasts
Just over two weeks ago, SpaceX accomplished its most impressive feat of cadence yet, both launching and recovering two separate Falcon 9s in approximately 49 hours.
Two weeks later and two days after conducting a third launch in 13 days, residents of Los Angeles, California and Cape Canaveral, Florida both coincidentally reported that the two recovered boosters from the previous two launches had both gone horizontal and appeared ready for transport. After docking in Port Canaveral for the second time, Core 1029 was seen entering SpaceX’s LC-39A integration facilities on Friday. The booster on the West coast, 1036, was loaded aboard one of the company’s converted Falcon 9-carrying semi-trucks, likely for transport to SpaceX’s Hawthorne manufacturing facilities, or possibly on a direct route to McGregor, Texas for refurbishment and testing.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BWQSPOgF67i/
This is exciting for several reasons. Foremost, 1036 is a likely candidate for reuse, and SES-10 sets a firm precedent for this. The first commercial reuse of an orbital-class launch vehicle, Falcon 9’s second stage and SES-10 payload launched on a first stage that had flown five months before during the successful launch of Iridium’s first ten NEXT satellites.
Given the potential impact of failure on the adoption of reuse as a commercial standard, SpaceX likely approached the refurbishment of the vehicle with an end-goal balanced between perfection and realism. The orbit of Iridium’s NEXT constellation is the reason the booster was chosen for the first operational reuse: their low Earth polar orbits require Falcon 9’s first stage to undergo a smaller amount of heating and general hypersonic battering when compared with SpaceX’s more common commercial launches of geostationary satellites.
-
- The central aluminum grid fin of 1029 features a dramatic lack of several vanes, likely melted off during the intense heat of reentry. Expending older boosters is likely helping SpaceX learn how to preserve Block 5 rockets for multiple high-energy missions. (Reddit, u/thedubya22)
-
- SpaceX will move to titanium grid fins in the future, first trialed during 1036’s launch of Iridium-2. (SpaceX)
A sound example of the extremes of Falcon 9’s suborbital reentry heating can be found in the recovery of 1029, which launched BulgariaSat-1 to a supersynchronous transfer orbit. Noted before the launch by Musk over his favored medium, 1029’s recovery was expected to be the most energetic yet, and thus success was less than certain. The results of this additional heating were obvious, and keen observers rapidly noted that the most stressed of 1029’s aluminum grid fins appeared to be considerably deformed from the stage’s energetic return to OCISLY, completed melted through in places. Considering the debut of more robust titanium grid fins aboard the launch of Iridium-2 only two days later, the quasi-destruction of one of 1029’s grid fins was somewhat fitting. 1036’s titanium grid fins looked barely worse for wear after a landing that was also deemed aggressive due to Just Read The Instructions having to avoid bad weather just before the landing.
Two weeks: BulgariaSat-1, Iridium-2, Intelsat 35e. (SpaceX)
Stirring explorations of the limits of recovery aside, both boosters are now ready to be examined and refurbished ahead of one or even two additional launches. SpaceX’s willingness to use the booster recovered from the launch of Thaicom-8 has already established that the company has a certain level of confidence in the reuse of first stages that have suffered high-velocity recoveries. Thus, 1036 is nearly certain to be reused, and 1029 has a strong chance as well.
-
- Falcon 9 1029’s lean is decidedly more extreme than the stage that launched Thaicom-8. (SpaceX)
-
- The aggressive Atlantic Ocean landing of Thaicom-8’s Falcon 9 first stage. (SpaceX)
The hot recovery of 1029 further marked the first use of a remotely-operated recovery robot aboard OCISLY, and could be seen below the leaning first stage as it entered Port Canaveral. It appears that its first use was a success, and the robot will certainly have a busy future of remotely securing first stages after landing. Remote securing and safing will both improve safety for those directly involved in on-ocean recovery, but it is also intended to expedite the process in order to ensure that OCISLY is prepared to recover Falcon 9 as often as possible. SpaceX’s recent cadence accomplishment of three launches in 13 days drives home the reality that weekly launches are readily achievable for the company, so long as there are pads available and payloads to be launched.
Weekly recoveries for an ASDS like OCISLY would be extremely time-sensitive, given the need for at least several days to simply reach the point of landing in the Pacific, and the addition of rapid robotic alternatives for operations aboard the drone ships could make such a goal more achievable. With SpaceX’s land-based landing facilities in perspective, it is easier to imagine a close future with weekly launches and landings of both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, and possibly the propulsive-landing Dragon 2 spacecraft further down the road.
1036 horizontal and ready for transport. (Instagram/Luka Hargett)
A symbiosis of SpaceX fans and those familiar with the metal and chemistry have also led to fans speculating that the now-standard titanium grid fins may develop a subtle, golden patina of oxygenation after many reuses. Nothing could be more picturesquely symbolic of the successes SpaceX has had in their pursuit of reusable rocketry.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
